Pages

Saturday, June 5, 2010

In an article I just read a study explored the socioeconomic connection with children taking medication for ADHD. Throughout reading the article I found that the findings were chocked-full of 'no duhh' moments. (As such articles often are.)

Key finding number one; "Boys were three times more likely to be on ADHD medication than girls, with medication use highest in boys aged between 10 and 15."

[For the most part] girls are entertained by playing with dolls, playing dress up, looking at beautiful things, feeling beautiful, playing with beautiful things, having conversations, and so forth. [Most] boys are entertained by action; sports and fighting and so forth. Also, it's been noted that boys are more likely to have just about anything due to less genetic stability. It's the Y-chromosome folks.

Key finding number two; "Women who had only received the most basic education were 130 percent more likely to have a child on ADHD medication than women with university degrees."

Well, no duh. Uneducated women are just as likely to have intelligent children as women with degrees. These intelligent children require stimuli to their brain to be occupied, but are being taught by someone with an unstimulated and numbed mind.

The other key factor here that isn't as obvious is that 'women who have only received the most basic education' likely have no idea what an enzyme is, what an amino acid is, what is healthy and what isn't. They're unlikely to know the importance of cardiovascular exercise, and so forth. If they were raised in a ghetto and went to public schools (as I did; so I know what those circumstances are like) then they likely spend hours a day in front of the television and do little to no reading (of novels or otherwise).

Also, their income is not going to be as high. So combine a lack of knowledge about health with a low income and you have children raised on candy, pasta, white bread, and fruit loops. Of course, they're going to be hyper, unable to focus, and bored out of their mind.

Key finding number three; "Children were 54 percent more likely to be on ADHD medication if they came from a single-parent family rather than having both parents at home."

One of the symptoms of ADHD is not being able to understand other peoples' actions, and/or not being able to read body language. If the child does not see two adults on a regular basis having normal interactions, that could be a partial explanation.

Another common symptom of ADHD is not being able to control impulses. Without the father around (as is usually the case), there may be much less discipline in the household.

Another factor may be that the parents are not able to tag-team the child's care; leaving the single parent more stressed, resulting in less patience with the child's needs.

Key finding number four; "Coming from a family on welfare benefits increased the risk of ADHD medication by 135 percent when compared with households not claiming benefits."

Again, see my conclusions about lack of money, and lack of education from 'finding number two.'

In America, and some other places in the world, there is a rising tide of “broken brains.” And conventional medicine isn't going to cure it.

This epidemic includes the above findings as well as conditions like depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, psychosis, autism, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, and Parkinson’s disease, as well as more subtle symptoms like mood swings, sleep problems, poor concentration, and brain fog.

Consider this; one in ten Americans today uses antidepressants, while more than eight million children are taking stimulants like Ritalin.

Is something wrong with this picture? Is this part of the normal human condition? Are we defectively designed so that we cannot be happy, or concentrate, or remember things without pills? Is depression a Prozac deficiency? Is ADHD a Ritalin deficiency? Is Alzheimer’s an Aricept deficiency?

No, they are not.

Also, consider;

Do giraffes get depressed and suffer because nobody gives them antidepressants? Do elephants get hyper and unable to focus on eating or bathing? Do goats go senile and forget how to climb mountains?

Let’s say you have chronic feelings of sadness and despair. Conventional doctors might say you have a disease called “depression.”

But depression is not the cause of your sadness and despair. It’s just a name we use to group people together for the purpose of giving them all the same drug therapy. You feel sad and despairing? You have “depression” and need an “antidepressant!” Or at least, that's what conventional medicine would have you believe.

But do we know the reason for these symptoms? Do we know the causes? Are they even the same from one person to another?

Think about it.

You and the person sitting next to you could both have chronic symptoms we call a “headache,” but maybe your pain is caused by drinking too much wine every night, while his pain is the result of being hit on the head with the empty bottle every night.

As you can imagine, these two chronic headaches can’t be cured in the same way, because their root causes are completely different. But that approach is exactly the one the current medical community is taking!

It's like taking aspirin because you have a nail through your foot. Clearly, this is a bad approach.

My guess is, that at least half the cases of 'ADHD' could be cured by a raw food diet, if not more. Hyperactivity and inability to focus is a huge indicator of too much sugar. It's a direct result of eating any amount of refined sugar.

Children have more 'immunity' to the effects of bad eating as children because their systems have not yet become worn down and 'depressed.' By the time we reach twenty-five or thirty, we have generally been bombarded by a successively less and less healthy lifestyle. School lunches, college lifestyle, and food stamps don't promote health (as anyone can see.)

Children, however, are still affected; especially when eating sugar in the form of 'high fructose corn syrup.' And when we're talking about the quantities found in 'natural' fruit juices, and 'fruit' roll-ups, and so forth, we're talking about enough sugar being consumed in one day to provide for a lifetime. (I'm serious, more sugar in a day than is needed in a lifetime.)

In my own personal experience, I have a much easier time focusing, going to sleep at night, and having a steady amount of energy now that I'm not eating sugars in any form except in their natural form - in fruits and vegetables.

2 comments:

Hello Raederle, I finally got around to your blog. This is really amazing. I thought about you after a lady from my church helped me get some groceries at the Grocery Outlet, and I found myself going directly to the produce section to get some raw foods. I got asparagus, broccoli, cauliflower, and carrots. Then I got some strawberry-banana nectar. I could really make a personal assignment out of this. I also watched the you-tube of Dr. Mark Hyman. Thanks so much for turning my head in this direction. I am certain that many of my issues are due to a lifelong habit of consuming a lot of junk food. It's never too late to start anew. - Andy

You're right. It's never too late. Some people have reversed life-long problems at the age of sixty-five and never been happier. I'm glad to see you having that attitude; too many people say that it's too late; especially young people which is just ridiculous.

What brings you here? What are you thoughts? Do you consider yourself a raw foodist? Approximately how much of your diet is raw? Do you consider yourself healthy? What would you like to see more of on this blog? Will you be back? Is this too many questions?